The Obama-Pelosi shuffle: How did Democrats lose the high ground on the torture investigation?

For those of us who hoped a Democratically controlled Washington would lead to a thorough review of the tortuous interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration, the last few days have sure been a drag.

Strike that: A fiasco!

First, President Barack Obama completely blew it by reversing his promise to make available possibly hundreds of photos that would have provided clear and definite evidence of just what took place.

Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference in which she managed to look as guilty as Richard Nixon while further managing to insult the Central Intelligence Agency in what surely was a bold-faced lie. (Though her expression was more blanched than bold.)

“They mislead us all the time,” Pelosi said.

Suddenly, the debate we needed to have in this country about what actually took place in those interrogation rooms – and what was justified by the Bush administration – has become lost in the Obama-Pelosi shuffle.

Instead, we’re left to wonder whether an ethics investigation should be launched against one of the most powerful Democrats in the nation.

Thanks, Nancy, for sticking up for our country’s principles back in 2003 when you for-sure knew about waterboarding!

Kind of makes it irrelevant what she says about 2002!

And she better hope and pray the CIA doesn’t leak the document that proves she knew in 2002! Because as columnist Charles Krauthammer put it, if Pelosi had been on a lie detector machine during that presser, “it would have short-circuited.”

The problem for the democrats is that they don’t want full investigation, but instead are using this for partisan political purposes. Anytime there is talk of investigating Democrats or those in the CIA, it is called a “distraction,” but for instance the congressional democrats already said that if Pelosi’s claims against the CIA were true, the CIA briefers would be guilty of a crime, yet this alleged CIA crime is a “distraction.” Alternatively Pelosi herself could be guilty of Conspiracy – particularly if her account was true. Pelosi’s own account lends her to being guilty of conspiracy because she says at first she was told about waterboarding but that it explicitly hadn’t been done yet in the 2002 congressional oversight briefing and she registered no objection of any kind and then after the CIA told her and she registered no objection, then the CIA did engage in waterboarding. If her account were true and she had objected in 2002 (which would have been an absolutely perfect time to object as per her account no waterboarding had taken place), then the CIA and the Bush administration would have been nailed but instead she is the one who is nailed and could herself be guilty of a crime. The more she says, the more reason she gives for why she should have raised a huge stink back in 2002 by for instance calling a closed session or sending a classified letter to the CIA saying that if the CIA did engage in waterboarding they would be committing crimes (the same type of letter Jane Harman sent, which Harman’s letter clearly shows it can be done). Because of all this the Democrats just look like they’re engaged in a partisan witchhunt and they just blow with the wind on supporting “torture” when it is political convenient and then opposing “torture” when it is politically convenient.

Dave

The problem for the democrats is that they don’t want full investigation, but instead are using this for partisan political purposes. Anytime there is talk of investigating Democrats or those in the CIA, it is called a “distraction,” but for instance the congressional democrats already said that if Pelosi’s claims against the CIA were true, the CIA briefers would be guilty of a crime, yet this alleged CIA crime is a “distraction.” Alternatively Pelosi herself could be guilty of Conspiracy – particularly if her account was true. Pelosi’s own account lends her to being guilty of conspiracy because she says at first she was told about waterboarding but that it explicitly hadn’t been done yet in the 2002 congressional oversight briefing and she registered no objection of any kind and then after the CIA told her and she registered no objection, then the CIA did engage in waterboarding. If her account were true and she had objected in 2002 (which would have been an absolutely perfect time to object as per her account no waterboarding had taken place), then the CIA and the Bush administration would have been nailed but instead she is the one who is nailed and could herself be guilty of a crime. The more she says, the more reason she gives for why she should have raised a huge stink back in 2002 by for instance calling a closed session or sending a classified letter to the CIA saying that if the CIA did engage in waterboarding they would be committing crimes (the same type of letter Jane Harman sent, which Harman’s letter clearly shows it can be done). Because of all this the Democrats just look like they’re engaged in a partisan witchhunt and they just blow with the wind on supporting “torture” when it is political convenient and then opposing “torture” when it is politically convenient.

Swen Swenson

Which is more important: National security or political supremacy? I think we can guess what Nanny Pelosi’s answer would be..

“I approved it before I disapproved of it!”

Swen Swenson

Which is more important: National security or political supremacy? I think we can guess what Nanny Pelosi’s answer would be..

“I approved it before I disapproved of it!”

Kelcy

Actually you could look at this as grand (albeit dangerous) gamesmanship. The Dems do want a full investigation but cannot be seen as wanting one or in any was expending the time and effort to do one. This could be the opening moves necessary to force an investigation into what Pelosi knew and when which in fact would force the full and open investigation that so many people want. The whole way this is going down…..allowing Obama to continue to call for moving forward while Pelosi is doing the dirty work of setting up the call for the investigation…..a call that will come from what essentially remains a Republican CIA and the Repubs themselves. Bizarrely funny, isn`t it?

Kelcy

Actually you could look at this as grand (albeit dangerous) gamesmanship. The Dems do want a full investigation but cannot be seen as wanting one or in any was expending the time and effort to do one. This could be the opening moves necessary to force an investigation into what Pelosi knew and when which in fact would force the full and open investigation that so many people want. The whole way this is going down…..allowing Obama to continue to call for moving forward while Pelosi is doing the dirty work of setting up the call for the investigation…..a call that will come from what essentially remains a Republican CIA and the Repubs themselves. Bizarrely funny, isn`t it?

Dirk Digler

I would like to see an investigation into all the lies that were told before the war. Where were the WMD’s?

Dirk Digler

I would like to see an investigation into all the lies that were told before the war. Where were the WMD’s?

Swen Swenson

Comment by Dirk Digler
“I would like to see an investigation into all the lies that were told before the war. Where were the WMD’s?”

Apparently they were a figment of Bill Clinton’s overheated imagination.. Or at least he was the first to warn us that Saddam was attempting to acquire them.

Consider this: That old Prince of Darkness, Dick Cheney himself, is asking for more disclosure while Obama is citing national security as a reason for continued secrecy. How odd is that?

Swen Swenson

Comment by Dirk Digler
“I would like to see an investigation into all the lies that were told before the war. Where were the WMD’s?”

Apparently they were a figment of Bill Clinton’s overheated imagination.. Or at least he was the first to warn us that Saddam was attempting to acquire them.

Consider this: That old Prince of Darkness, Dick Cheney himself, is asking for more disclosure while Obama is citing national security as a reason for continued secrecy. How odd is that?

David Johnson

Nancy Pelosi still has a lot of explaining to do. She really stepped into it this time. She appears so “caught” in her web of lies. A public apology might be best, then move on.

David Johnson

Nancy Pelosi still has a lot of explaining to do. She really stepped into it this time. She appears so “caught” in her web of lies. A public apology might be best, then move on.

Kevin J Jones

Our government is incapable of rooting out widespread wrongdoing among its leadership, regardless of party.

The Democrats can’t prosecute the Republicans for fear the Republicans will be just as unrelenting when (not if) Democrats break laws.

We occasionally see a few politicians go down because of bribery or a sex scandal. Yet when many politicians cooperate in lawbreaking, nobody is guilty.

Kevin J Jones

Our government is incapable of rooting out widespread wrongdoing among its leadership, regardless of party.

The Democrats can’t prosecute the Republicans for fear the Republicans will be just as unrelenting when (not if) Democrats break laws.

We occasionally see a few politicians go down because of bribery or a sex scandal. Yet when many politicians cooperate in lawbreaking, nobody is guilty.

me2

I am as psychic as a stone, but I foresee Pelosi holding her ground, and coming out on top of this.

The Republicans wanted to move on, now they are stuck going along with a full investigation.

They were in the catbird seat and flung themselves out. If they had not accused her of knowing or let her be accused this would not have happened. This is platinum plated irony.

me2

I am as psychic as a stone, but I foresee Pelosi holding her ground, and coming out on top of this.

The Republicans wanted to move on, now they are stuck going along with a full investigation.

They were in the catbird seat and flung themselves out. If they had not accused her of knowing or let her be accused this would not have happened. This is platinum plated irony.

Wally Sobchak

Where is the “low ground” during an investigation to determine what laws were broken and who broke them?

Wally Sobchak

Where is the “low ground” during an investigation to determine what laws were broken and who broke them?

Purple patriot

The Democrats still hold the moral highground no matter how much the GOP and some in the media would wish otherwise. Obama has taken a prudent, middle of the road approach that most Americans accept. Thoughtful Americans know Pelosi did not authorize or condone torture, the Republicans did. When this little, fabricated tempest blows over, the national focus will return to GOP crimes and failures during the Bush-Cheney-Rove years – as it should.

Purple patriot

The Democrats still hold the moral highground no matter how much the GOP and some in the media would wish otherwise. Obama has taken a prudent, middle of the road approach that most Americans accept. Thoughtful Americans know Pelosi did not authorize or condone torture, the Republicans did. When this little, fabricated tempest blows over, the national focus will return to GOP crimes and failures during the Bush-Cheney-Rove years – as it should.

Libertas

It baffles me how someone who spends taxpayer money murdering babies could have the temerity to talk about “moral high ground.”

If it’s about “morality,” and we disagree, doesn’t that mean they’re cramming their morality down our throats? And isn’t that what they’ve been whining about us wanting to do since Roe v. Wade?

Libertas

It baffles me how someone who spends taxpayer money murdering babies could have the temerity to talk about “moral high ground.”

If it’s about “morality,” and we disagree, doesn’t that mean they’re cramming their morality down our throats? And isn’t that what they’ve been whining about us wanting to do since Roe v. Wade?

Bruce

Isn’t it currently a case of, “she said/ he said”??

Given the remarkable history of deceptions, distortions and lies to come out of the recent Republican administration, wouldn’t it be fair to hold off until we get more proof against Pelosi?? In fact, haven’t more than one Republicans expressed support for the argument that the CIA has not always been entirely accurate with their reports?

Pelosi may indeed be the most outrageous of liars, but won’t we need more info before coming to that conclusion??

Bruce

Bruce

Isn’t it currently a case of, “she said/ he said”??

Given the remarkable history of deceptions, distortions and lies to come out of the recent Republican administration, wouldn’t it be fair to hold off until we get more proof against Pelosi?? In fact, haven’t more than one Republicans expressed support for the argument that the CIA has not always been entirely accurate with their reports?

Pelosi may indeed be the most outrageous of liars, but won’t we need more info before coming to that conclusion??

Bruce

Rose

There was no high ground. Pelosi and other Dems knew about this way back when. I want it to be brought to light so it will show just how compromising the dems were.

Rose

There was no high ground. Pelosi and other Dems knew about this way back when. I want it to be brought to light so it will show just how compromising the dems were.

me2

Knowing about something, or suspecting it happens are not the same. So Rose, Pelosi knew Bush Cheney were war criminals committing war crimes. What exactly should she have done?

What would you have done?

me2

Knowing about something, or suspecting it happens are not the same. So Rose, Pelosi knew Bush Cheney were war criminals committing war crimes. What exactly should she have done?

What would you have done?

Joe

Because this whole issue of torture was much ado over nothing. That, and because Pelosi is a muttonhead who stuck her foot in her mouth before engaging what little brain she has. Then there is wishy-washy Obama whom now seems afraid to take on the Pentagon. What a pair, and they are called “leadership?”

Joe

Because this whole issue of torture was much ado over nothing. That, and because Pelosi is a muttonhead who stuck her foot in her mouth before engaging what little brain she has. Then there is wishy-washy Obama whom now seems afraid to take on the Pentagon. What a pair, and they are called “leadership?”

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.